In a dramatic legal standoff emblematic of the ongoing tug-of-war between federal and state authority, a federal judge in Oregon has extended her order barring President Donald Trump’s administration from deploying National Guard troops to Portland until at least Friday, November 7, 2025. The ruling, handed down on Sunday, November 2, by U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut, follows months of contentious protests, legal maneuvering, and a three-day trial that scrutinized the president’s power to federalize and deploy troops in response to civil unrest.
The city of Portland and the state of Oregon, both led by Democratic officials, sued in late September to block the Trump administration’s move. Their lawsuit argued that the president’s federalization order—intended to quell protests outside the city’s U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility—represented one of the most significant infringements on Oregon’s sovereignty in state history. According to CNN, state and city attorneys accused the administration of “dramatically misrepresenting the situation and risking inflaming tensions.”
At the heart of the legal battle was whether the conditions in Portland justified such a sweeping federal intervention. The Trump administration maintained that it was acting within its authority to protect federal personnel and property, citing what it described as “coordinated violence” and even characterizing the protests as a “rebellion” or “danger of rebellion”—one of the legal triggers for calling up troops under federal law. Federal attorneys pointed to nearly 250 arrests or citations issued at the ICE building between early June and mid-October, and described protesters as engaging in “disturbingly intrusive behavior” and organized violence. “It is a frequent occurrence for agitators to carry bats, improvised weapons and shields,” Justice Department attorney Eric Hamilton told the court, as reported by CNN.
Yet, after reviewing over 750 exhibits and hearing testimony from local police, federal officials, and legal experts, Judge Immergut found these claims wanting. In her 16-page order, she wrote, “Based on the trial testimony, this Court finds no credible evidence that during the approximately two months before the President’s federalization order, protests grew out of control or involved more than isolated and sporadic instances of violent conduct that resulted in no serious injuries to federal personnel.” According to The New York Times, Immergut further noted that most violence appeared to be between protesters and counter-protesters, and that there was no significant damage to the ICE facility at the center of the protests.
Judge Immergut’s ruling went further, stating that the federal government’s deployment of the National Guard in Oregon exceeded its legal authority, violated the Tenth Amendment by infringing on state sovereignty, and did not meet the legal definition of a “rebellion.” She concluded that the situation caused ongoing constitutional harm, justifying immediate judicial intervention. “The majority of violence that did occur during this time period involved violence between protesters and counter-protesters and isolated sporadic incidents of low-level unlawful conduct,” her order read.
Testimony during the trial revealed that federal and National Guard officials were largely left in the dark about the deployment decision. A deputy regional director for the Federal Protective Service, identified in court by the initials R.C., testified that he and his boss—the FPS regional director—were “surprised” by the order and had only learned about it through news reports. R.C. also stated he did not request troops and was not consulted prior to the president’s announcement. When asked about the need for deployment, he acknowledged that additional personnel could alleviate staff strain, but stopped short of endorsing the move. “I was surprised to learn about the deployment and did not agree with statements about Portland burning down,” R.C. testified, according to Oregon Public Broadcasting.
The trial also shone a spotlight on law enforcement’s response to the protests. Local police officials testified that after declaring a riot on June 14, the Portland Police Bureau shifted its strategy to intervene only when person or property crimes occurred. Since the end of June, crowd numbers have largely diminished, and city police have reportedly been able to handle the situation. The ICE building did close for three weeks over the summer due to property damage, forcing employees to relocate temporarily, but the plaintiffs argued that work continued without significant disruption.
Oregon Senior Assistant Attorney General Scott Kennedy addressed the court, stating, “Without minimizing or condoning offensive expressions or certain instances of criminal conduct, none of these incidents suggest ... that there’s a rebellion or an inability to execute the laws.”
Adding to the legal complexities, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has vacated a previous decision that paused one of Judge Immergut’s orders and will rehear the matter before an 11-judge “en banc” panel. Until that hearing, the original restraining order remains in effect, keeping the National Guard in limbo at Portland-area training bases. The Trump administration had federalized 400 troops from Oregon and California, but according to a government lawyer’s statement before the Ninth Circuit, only 200 were slated for actual deployment.
In a surprising revelation during the October trial, it emerged that National Guard troops had been present at the Portland ICE facility on October 4, even after Judge Immergut issued her restraining order that afternoon. Justice Department attorney Eric Hamilton explained, “My clients were working to end the mission,” attributing the continued presence of troops to delays in implementing the order. His colleague, Jean Lin, clarified that the troops remained until 2 a.m. the following morning.
Meanwhile, Oregon introduced surveillance video at trial to support claims that federal agents had used “disproportionate” force against demonstrators. One video from August 13 showed an agent running into a protester from behind and knocking the person to the ground; another from October 2 depicted a protester stepping across a property line at the ICE facility before being rushed by more than a dozen agents and taken into custody. CNN reported that the Department of Homeland Security declined to comment on the footage.
The legal saga in Portland is not unfolding in isolation. Other Democratic-led cities, such as Chicago, have also taken the Trump administration to court in an effort to block similar deployments, arguing that the president has not met the legal threshold for such actions and that doing so undermines states’ rights. The Supreme Court has even requested additional briefing in the high-profile Chicago case, underscoring the national significance of the issue.
As the nation watches, the legal and political battle over military deployments in American cities continues to test the limits of presidential power and state sovereignty. For now, at least, Portland remains a focal point in that struggle, with Judge Immergut’s order standing as a temporary but significant check on federal authority.
